THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.586 of 2006
ORDER:
On 22.09.2000 this revision petitioner along with one of his associates, after due trial before learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur were convicted of attempted murder/Section 307 I.P.C. in S.C.No.644 of 1998. This revision petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. His appeal against it was given due hearing by learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and by a judgment dated 29.04.2005 in Crl.A.No.397 of 2002 the learned appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and it agreed with the findings and conclusions and sentence arrived at by the trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is in challenge to it, this revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness and legality of findings and sentence of the Courts below.
2. Learned counsel, in defence of the revision petitioner, argued that the judgments impugned were products of premises and surmises and they failed to appreciate evidence in proper 2 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 perspective. That the dispute was between the victim and A.1 (not a party to this revision) and the present revision petitioner/A.2 did not have any common intention along with A.1. Evidence concerning scene of offence and the evidence of other witnesses had no corroboration. Benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the revision petitioner. The sentence inflicted is excessive. On these premises, learned counsel prays this Court to upset the impugned judgments and acquit the revision petitioner.
3. In the Courts below it was a case on police report and the State is the respondent here and in prosecution of the respondent's endeavour, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence on record had fully demonstrated the culpability of this revision petitioner and his associate and the evidence of the victim, who luckily survived the attack, found full corroboration from the direct eye witnesses and the medical evidence and both the Courts below appropriately appreciated the evidence and reached to correct conclusions and inflicted penalty that is proportionate and submits that there could be no justification to interfere with the well reasoned decisions of the Courts below. 3
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006
4. In the light of the arguments advanced on both sides in this revision, the following points fall for consideration:
1. Whether evidence on record did not point out the guilt of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt and the Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence? and
2. Whether the impugned judgments suffer from illegality or irregularity or impropriety warranting interference?
5. Point Nos.1 and 2:
Prosecution was on a police report filed against three accused arrayed as A.1, A.2 and A.3. Even before the commencement of trial, A.1 died and the case stood abated against him on 09.08.1999. The essential allegations on which case was taken to Court was that between the victim/PW.1 and one Mr. M.Raju there was a bargain for sale of a pan shop. The said Sri M.Raju happened to be brother-in-law of A.1. That particular transaction was disliked by A.1 and that resulted in a heated debate between A.1 and PW.1 during noon time of 18.06.1997. These facts and circumstances, according to prosecution formed the motive for the offence. 4
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006
6. After that heated debate during after noon it was during evening hours at about 6:00 P.M. on 18.06.1997 A.1 along with A.2 and A.3 found the victim near a tea stall at 4 th line of Bongaralabeedu, Guntur. All the accused accosted him and by then they were wielding coconut cutting knives and they attacked him. A.2 with an intention to hack the victim to death threw a blow with his coconut cutting knife and when the victim warded it off, he sustained an injury on his hand and the victim started running away and all the three accused chased him and inflicted blows causing injuries on his neck back and other parts of the body and they further chased him and nearer the house of one Mr. Cheedarla Nagaiah they were able to catch him once again and inflicted serious blows on his body. He suffered serious bleeding injuries. Victim's brother-PW.2 and others reached the spot and on seeing such group of people, the accused took to heels. Overt acts were alleged as against all the three accused. Specific overt acts were attributed to each of the accused. Prosecution submitted that the actual commission of offence of this attempted murder was witnessed by several witnesses.
5
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006
7. Victim's brother took the victim to Government Hospital. It seems that considering the seriousness of injuries sustained by the victim, the hospital authorities notified the fact to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate recorded his dying declaration. Police reached the hospital and obtained a copy of the dying declaration-Ex.P.1. Based on that they registered F.I.R. by 8:20 P.M. on the same day. F.I.R. that was dispatched to the jurisdictional Magistrate was received by the learned Magistrate by 10:15 A.M. At the hospital the doctor-PW.9 examined the victim and noticed as many as 13 injuries and issued Ex.P.7-wound certificate and the injuries were found to be fresh. Following were the injuries recorded by the medical man:
1) Bleeding incised injury extending lower third of fore arm with amputation of left thumb and tip of the ring finger exposing muscles and tendons 15 c.ms x 4 c.ms.
2) Horizontal incised injury spindle shaped, bleeding, 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. muscle deep on the left shoulder.
3) A spindle shaped bleeding incised wound 5 x 3 c.m. muscle deep present on the left shoulder. 1 inch back to the second injury.6
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006
4) Two incised injuries obliquely present on the left lateral side of the neck, bleeding 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. depth not probed.
5) Two incised injuries obliquely present on the left side of the neck extending anterior side of neck 10 c.m. x 1 c.m. bleeding present.
6) X shaped incised injury on the anterior chest red in colour 10 x 1/2 c.m.s skin deep.
7) 5 incised injuries of 1 c.m. skin deep red in colour present on the anterior chest wall.
8) 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. skin deep red on left lateral chest wall incised wound.
9) 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. muscle deep incised injury spindle shaped bleeding on the upper aspect of right shoulder.
10) 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. incised injury on the right shoulder 1 inch lateral to the 9th injury red in colour.
11) Two spindle shaped incised injuries bleeding 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. muscle deep present on right palm exposing bones tendons and muscles.
12) Incised injury 2 c.ms. x 1/2 c.m. skin deep over the root of the right index finger red in colour.
13) 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. incised injuries skin deep present on the right side of the neck red in colour.
He found some of those injuries as grievous and some of them as simple. The investigating police verified the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of it and picked up blood stained 7 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 earth from the scene of offence indicating that offence was committed there. After all the accused surrendered before the learned Magistrate, the investigating agency obtained police custody of them and thereafter on the confession allegedly made by the accused the three coconut knives/M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered at their behest based on their statements when these weapons were lying in bushes nearer the scene of offence. Statements of witnesses were recorded. At the scene of offence investigating agency recovered M.O.5-chappals belonging to the victim and they also seized M.O.6-cycle belonging to A.3. They recovered from the victim's blood stained shirt/M.O.7. On due completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. After securing the presence of the accused complying with the mandate under Section 207 Cr.P.C., copies of documents on which the prosecution was relying upon were furnished to the accused. The learned Magistrate after hearing the submissions on both sides and on considering the material on record in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, for purpose of trial, assigned the matter to learned Additional 8 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. Record discloses that the accused were defended by their own learned counsel at every stage of the case. Based on the material available on record and considering the submissions made by both sides, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, framed charge under Section 307 I.P.C. and the same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and therefore, further trial was taken up by the trial Court. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 7. The incriminating material available on record was offered to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their response was a mere denial. Defence did not adduce any evidence on its behalf. While cross-examining prosecution witnesses defence got marked Exs.D.1 to D.4 with a view to impeach the credibility of three witnesses.
8. On considering the evidence on record and the arguments on both sides, learned trial Court found A.2/this revision petitioner and A.3 guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted them and sentenced them accordingly.
9. Thereafter the appeal of A.2 before the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur was duly heard and the 9 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 learned Judge dismissed the appeal as in his opinion there was no merit in the appeal.
10. Doing an act with the intention or knowledge that the act may cause death and still doing acts towards it is what is called an attempted murder as defined in Section 307 I.P.C. When an injury is there on human body inflicted by another human, law intends to know whether the assailant's intention was merely to cause hurt or it was to remove the life of the victim. Intention being a mental element no one knows what was there inside the mind of the assailant. However, from the available physical facts intention has to be gathered. The guiding factors in that regard consists of, actual injuries inflicted and their severity and the nature of the weapon used and the seat of the injuries and such other surrounding circumstances. Both the Courts below believed the evidence and had concluded that the accused had requisite intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention he inflicted injuries and he had full capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. It is on that premise they found him guilty. Since both the Courts below believed the evidence and reached to similar conclusions, the guiding factors for this Court to consider a revision against such 10 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 decisions of the Courts below are slightly different from the powers of this Court while dealing with an appeal. The essential parameters for this Court are to see whether the trial Court or the first appellate Court shut out any evidence which was sought to be produced, whether any admissible evidence was brushed aside, whether available material evidence was over looked, whether they went on to decide the cases without holding requisite jurisdiction, whether failed to comply with principles of fair trial. On noticing any such lapses, the power to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction arises. The notion of law is that process and scrupulous compliance with process would lead to justice and any failure in the process would lead to miscarriage of justice. It is on these principles this revision has to be considered.
11. In response to the allegations of the prosecution and when the charge was read out in terms of Section 228(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, defence did not offer any facts and did not raise any specific line of defence. The same stand continued during Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings when the revision petitioner was confronted with the sworn evidence of material witnesses and other material circumstances which incriminated 11 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 him. He did not offer any explanations, did not raise any specific line of defence and he simply stated that what was deposed by witnesses was not correct. During the hearing of this revision also, no particular defence was argued for the revision petitioner. Thus, the trial, the appeal and this revision are to decide as to whether the evidence available is believable and whether evidence indicated existence of all the constituting elements of offence for which the accused was tried. Both Courts below presumed the innocence of accused and placed the burden of proof on prosecution.
12. The victim in this case survived the attack and was able to swear before the Court and deposed as PW.1. He gave his account of the facts at the trial. All his statements tallied with his earlier statement made by him in the hospital before the learned Magistrate based on which statement F.I.R. was registered. His evidence as to his injuries on his body was fully endorsed in Ex.P.7-wound certificate and through the sworn evidence of the doctor/PW.9 that stood corroborated. The incident was found proved by the Courts below not only based on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.9 and both the Courts below observed that M.Os.1 to 3 are the coconut cutting knives, which 12 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 were stated to have been used in this crime, were recovered by way of discovery made in pursuance of confessional statements of accused. In the evidence of investigating officer/PW.10 and Ex.P.10-rough sketch and from the evidence of panch witness/PW.4, the Courts below found existence of blood at the scene of offence. At the trial the presence of accused at the scene of offence was believed by the Courts below as PWs.2, 5 and 7 gave evidence that they saw the accused and they saw the victim and they saw the accused with weapons and saw the accused inflicting severe blows on the body of PW.1 and that PW.1 was seen running away from the spot and being chased by these accused and PW.1 fell on ground on two occasions and once again raising and running away and the accused relentlessly pursuing him and causing injuries on the body of PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 and these supporting witnesses indicated to the Courts below that at one occasion when the victim fell down these accused kicked him, rolled him further and beat him indiscriminately. The age of the wound as per the medical evidence tallied with the time of sustaining injuries spoken to by these witnesses and the evidence of witnesses indicated that coconut cutting knives were used and the 13 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 medical expert found the injuries on the body of PW.1 could have been inflicted with such sharp weapons. Courts below recorded that the doctor/PW.9, in categorical terms stated that had the injuries not been treated, those injuries had propensity to kill the victim. It was on such evidence of the victim and others, the Courts below concluded the culpability of this revision petitioner.
13. Having gone through the entire material on record, this Court does not find any omission to consider the available evidence and does not find any fact being recorded based on material that was never produced before the Court as the victim and four other witnesses spoke about the occurrence of the incident and any defence contention against such evidence being not considered by the Courts below.
14. The submission of the learned counsel for revision petitioner turns on the appreciation of evidence and it has not pointed out any procedural pit falls or violation of any norms concerning evidence. One submission of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that this revision petitioner had no disputes with PW.1/victim and all the disputes were there between PW.1 and A.1. On this submission, it has to be stated 14 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 that the allegation of prosecution and the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court indicted that though it was A.1 who had trouble with PW.1, it is not A.1 alone who reached to the victim, but A.1 reached to the victim along with revision petitioner and other persons and they followed him wielding coconut knives. The evidence on record fully established possession of coconut knives by the accused at the time of offence. One who did not possess any criminal intention, would not have gone along with A.1 that too holding a coconut knife in hand. Therefore, shared intention was manifested by this revision petitioner. Even otherwise, for the injuries he inflicted with the kind of weapon at such places on the body of PW.1 independently established his guilt for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. As per the evidence of PW.1, twice on his neck this revision petitioner inflicted injuries. The medical record and the evidence of PW.1 showed that the victim lost his thumb, sustained injuries on the neck, back of the chest and other parts of the body. Neck, back of the chest are vital parts, even according to the medical evidence and they indicated what the revision petitioner intended to do to PW.1. Therefore, absence of any prior dispute for this revision 15 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 petitioner with PW.1 is absolutely no ground to disbelieve the evidence. Moreover when there is direct evidence, absence of motive or failure to prove motive or proof of weak motive makes no difference. The other submission of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses and the evidence concerning scene of offence was not fully established and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to accused. From the established evidence, the defence must be in a position to show possible doubt that could be felt. It is only then benefit of such doubt would go to the citizen. The argument submitted relates to post event evidence with reference to the collection of evidence at the scene of offence. When there is substantive substantial evidence indicating his attack on PW.1 is clearly available on record, even if there is some lapse in the evidence of other witnesses concerning verification of scene of offence, the conclusions cannot suffer a dent. Independent of it, when this Court has looked into the judgments of the Courts below, what this revision petitioner was arguing before the Courts below was only this. According to prosecution, the crime started nearer the tea stall and the man of the tea stall did not 16 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 testify. During the chase when the victim reached the place nearer the house of Sri Cheedarla Nagaiah prosecution had to examine the said Cheedarla Nagaiah but it failed. Courts below considered these contentions and stated that it was not the evidence of PW.1 or other witnesses that Sri Cheedarla Nagaiah or the man in the tea stall witnessed the offence. Thus, two persons, who never witnessed the offence, were not examined by the prosecution. One who witnessed the offence was a necessary witness and all the necessary witnesses were examined. If defence still believed that those two witnesses could have brought to light facts which could exonerate the accused it was well within the competence of the defence to have those witnesses examined utilising process of the Court, which the revision petitioner did not adopt to. Harping on non- examination of persons, who never witnessed the offence, is a frivolous contention which the revision petitioner has adopted here. Courts below analysed Exs.D.1 to D.4 and found that no single material contradiction or any contradiction was pointed out in the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.D.3 and D.4 had absolutely no strength to discard the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 respectively. This Court finds no wrong in the approach of the Courts below. 17
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 This Court finds no reason to disagree with any of the findings and conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below and finds no merit in any of the submissions made by the revision petitioner.
15. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that for a period beyond two years the revision petitioner underwent sentence and this Court may reduce the sentence to the extent of sentence he already underwent.
16. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed it stating that the offence is heinous. On considering these rival submissions, this Court has to state that a sentence shall always reflect the seriousness of the offence and protect the public. Section 307 I.P.C. provides that if hurt is caused one of the punishments prescribed is imprisonment for life. In the case at hand, serious hurt was caused to victim. Courts below sentenced him to seven years imprisonment. In terms of proportionality of sentence when this Court considered the matter, the gravity of the offence, the nature of the weapons used and the manner in which the offence was committed it finds that the sentence inflicted by both the Courts below is in accordance with law. 18
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 With these reasons, all the points are answered against the revision petitioner.
17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Revision petitioner/A.2-Vadde Sowri Raju shall surrender before the trial Court and submit himself on or before 14.02.2023, failing which the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur shall take coercive process to him and secure his presence for execution of punishment.
18. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this judgment along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 09.02.2023. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 07.02.2023 Ivd 19 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.586 of 2006 Date: 07.02.2023 Ivd